From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19042 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2012 17:29:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 19033 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Oct 2012 17:29:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:29:23 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9HHTIq2008547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:29:19 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9HHTH2h026016 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:29:17 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: lgustavo@codesourcery.com Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix mi "-var-create" regression References: <5075D4FD.9050900@mentor.com> <507743DF.1020907@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:29:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <507743DF.1020907@codesourcery.com> (Luis Machado's message of "Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:10:39 -0300") Message-ID: <871ugx3t3m.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg00289.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Luis" == Luis Machado writes: Luis> I thought about this for a while, and the best testing mechanism seems Luis> to be just turning the "print object" option on by default and running Luis> the entire testsuite, otherwise this test will be very specific to the Luis> -var-create mechanism. I think you'd see a lot of failures doing this. FWIW I think 'set print object on' should be the default. It is a FAQ for C++ programmers. However, I think this would require a lot of annoying test suite hacking. Luis> If we're thinking about a regression coverage test, then i agree that Luis> a test is appropriate in this case, so we can be sure it will never Luis> happen again. I think a regression test is both necessary and sufficient. Tom